1

Monroe County Community School Corporation

Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan

We believe:

• multiple data points, a variety of information sources, and other quantitative and qualitative considerations are required for a fair and accurate assessment of teacher performance.

• the system should create a culture of trust and confidence among all educators.

• collegial professional dialogue is important for continuous growth.

• the appraisal system should incorporate collegial decision-making.

• the system should be flexible and include procedures to address

anomalies and inconsistencies.

2015-2016

“Collaboration will drive excellence in teaching.”

The culture of education is changing. Our district chooses to respond positively and professionally to create a fair teacher appraisal plan that positively impacts student learning.

Board Approved 04/28/15

2

Monroe County Community School Corporation Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose and Rationale of the Evaluation System .......................................................................................................... 4

Belief Statements ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Evaluation and Support System Overview ..................................................................................................................... 5

Performance Level Rating .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Negative Impact on Learning ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Procedures to Ensure Students Do Not Receive Instruction from Ineffective Teachers Two Years in Row ................... 6

Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric ....................................................................................................................... 6

Classroom Teacher: ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Non-Classroom Teacher: ............................................................................................................................... 7

Teacher Performance .................................................................................................................................... 8

Elements of the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model – 90% of Summative Rating ..................................... 9

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Map .............................................................................................................. 11

Model Learning Map ................................................................................................................................... 12

Marzano Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluation Map .................................................................................... 13

Student Growth Measures .......................................................................................................................... 14

Final Summative Performance Level Rating ............................................................................................... 14

Number of Teacher Days Required for a Qualifying Evaluation – Planned Leave ....................................................... 15

Teachers Who Serve Multiple Schools ......................................................................................................................... 16

Evaluators .................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Primary Evaluator ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Secondary Evaluator ................................................................................................................................... 16

Training for Staff Responsible for Evaluation .............................................................................................. 16

Teacher Evaluation Process and Timeline ................................................................................................... 16

Teacher Evaluation Process ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Resources to Support Teacher Performance ............................................................................................................... 18

Teacher Self-Reflection Tool ........................................................................................................................................ 18

One to Three SMART Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 18

3

Professional Growth and Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 18

Classroom Observations/Evaluations .......................................................................................................................... 18

Evaluative Evidence ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

Teacher Performance Reflective Conference ............................................................................................................... 20

Plan of Assistance ........................................................................................................................................................ 20

Summative Performance Conference .......................................................................................................................... 20

Structured Plan of Assistance for Improvement Necessary or Ineffective Summative Performance Level Rating ..... 21

Second Evaluator ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Structured Plan of Assistance Timelines ..................................................................................................... 21

Oversight Process ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Appendix A: Conjunctive Scoring Example and Tool ................................................................................................... 23

Appendix B: Summative Scoring for Teachers and Additional Certified Staff ............................................................ 25

4

Monroe County Community School Corporation

Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan

Introduction When teachers succeed, students succeed. Research has proven that no school-level factor matters more to students’ success than high-quality teachers. To support our teachers, we need to clearly define excellent practice and results; give accurate, useful information about teachers’ strengths and development areas; and provide opportunities for growth and recognition.

Purpose and Rationale of the Evaluation System The primary purpose of the MCCSC Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan is to support student success by designing an appraisal system that will drive excellence in teaching through collaboration, professional development, accountability, and respect for educators as self-directed learners. Beyond meeting the requirements of the law, this system is designed to support the district’s mission, to gather data to inform practice for the continued growth and development of our teachers and to ensure a culture of professionalism. To accomplish this, supervision and evaluation must be effected by continuous, constructive and collaborative processes among professional educators in a climate characterized by trust, support, clear expectations and the availability of appropriate resources and materials. Teachers and their evaluators must share the responsibility for achieving professional and creative growth and competence. The following principles form the structure for the MCCSC Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan:

• Student learning is directly affected by teacher competence. • Teacher competence is positively affected by the integration of teacher evaluation and

professional development. • Teachers, like students, must be continual learners. • An effective evaluation plan requires a clear definition of teaching and learning and a clear

system to assess it. • The gaps between expectation for student performance and actual student performance should

guide the content of professional learning. The establishment of professional goals, observation, self-reflection and the collection and analysis of other data sources of teaching and learning begin to operationalize these ideas. This document emphasizes the linkages among teacher evaluation, professional learning and improved student learning.

Belief Statements • Multiple data points, a variety of information sources, and other quantitative and qualitative

considerations are required for a fair and accurate assessment of teacher performance. • The system should create a culture of trust and confidence among all educators. • Collegial professional dialogue is important for continuous growth. • The appraisal system should incorporate collegial decision-making.

5

• The system should be flexible and include procedures to address anomalies and inconsistencies.

Evaluation and Support System Overview The MCCSC Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan consists of multiple measures to paint an accurate and comprehensive picture of teacher performance. All teachers will be evaluated in two major categories, the Teacher Performance Rubric and Student Growth Measures.

1. Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric: An evaluation of the core instructional practices and skills that positively affect student learning. This will be based on the four domains included in the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model.

2. Student Growth Measures: An evaluation of teacher’s contribution to student academic progress.

Performance Level Rating Scores from each of the two categories will be combined to produce a summative performance rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement Necessary, or Ineffective. (IC-20-28-11.5-4)

• Highly Effective: A Highly Effective teacher consistently exceeds expectations. This is a teacher who has demonstrated excellence, as determined by a trained evaluator, in locally selected competencies reasonably believed to be highly correlated with positive student learning outcomes. The highly effective teacher’s students, in aggregate, have generally exceeded expectations for academic growth and achievement based on guidelines suggested by the Indiana Department of Education.

• Effective: An Effective teacher consistently meets expectations. This is a teacher who has consistently met expectations, as determined by a trained evaluator, in locally selected competencies reasonably believed to be highly correlated with positive student learning outcomes. The effective teacher’s students, in aggregate, have generally achieved an acceptable rate of academic growth and achievement based on guidelines suggested by the Indiana Department of Education.

• Improvement Necessary: A teacher who is rated as Improvement Necessary requires a change

in performance before he/she meets expectations. This is a teacher who a trained evaluator has determined to require improvement in locally selected competencies reasonably believed to be highly correlated with positive student learning outcomes. In aggregate, the students of a teacher rated Improvement Necessary have generally achieved a below acceptable rate of academic growth and achievement based on guidelines suggested by the Indiana Department of Education.

• Ineffective: An Ineffective teacher consistently fails to meet expectations. This is a teacher who

has failed to meet expectations, as determined by a trained evaluator, in locally selected competencies reasonably believed to be highly correlated with positive student learning outcomes. The Ineffective teacher’s students, in aggregate, have generally achieved unacceptable levels of academic growth and achievement based on guidelines suggested by the Indiana Department of Education.

6

Negative Impact on Learning IC 20-28-11.4-4(c)(4) and (6) requires that the following provision be included in each school district’s teacher evaluation plan: A teacher who negatively affects student achievement and growth cannot receive a rating of highly effective or effective.

Negative Impact on Student Learning will be determined as follows:

• For those teachers who teach classes measured by statewide assessments that are included in the growth model data (Language Arts and Mathematics grades 4-8), the IDOE shall determine and revise at regular intervals the cut levels in growth results that would determine negative impact growth and achievement.

Negatively impacting student learning is characterized by a significant decrease in student achievement and notably low levels of student growth. This measure will be calculated by the Department of Education.

For a teacher to be determined as negatively impacting student learning both of the following criteria must be met:

A. Mean ISTEP+ scale score – ISTEP+ scale scores for all students assigned to a teacher will be averaged and then compared to the same variable from the previous year. In order for a teacher to be identified as negatively impacting student learning, the mean ISTEP+ scale score must drop by 15 or more scale points from one year to the next.

B. Median student growth percentile – The median student growth percentile of all students assigned to a teacher will be measured. In order for a teacher to be identified as negatively impacting student learning, the median student growth percentile must be 15 or less.

This rigorous requirement supports an accurate identification of negative impact and protects against statistical anomalies.

• For all other teachers, a score of 1 on the Student Growth Measure shall indicate negative impact on student learning.

Procedures to Ensure Students Do Not Receive Instruction from Ineffective Teachers Two Years in Row This section applies to any teacher instructing students in a content area and grade subject to IC 20-32-4-1(a)(1) and IC 20-32-5-2.

A student may not be instructed for two (2) consecutive years by two (2) consecutive teachers, each of whom was rated as Ineffective under this chapter in the school year immediately before the school year in which the student is placed in the respective teacher’s class. If this situation cannot be avoided, parents will be notified according to State statute.

Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric All certified staff members will be evaluated according to a Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric.

7

The MCCSC Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan is founded on the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is based on a number of previous, related works, including What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003), Classroom Instruction That Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) Classroom Management That Works (Marzano, 2003), Classroom Assessment and Grading That Work (Marzano, 2006), The Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, 2007), and Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). Each of these works was generated from a synthesis of educational research and theory. Thus, the model can be considered an aggregation of the research on those elements that have traditionally been shown to correlate with student academic achievement.

Classroom Teacher: **Hyperlink to: MARZANO CENTER TEACHER OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR THE 2014 MARZANO

TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL This evaluation framework is an evaluation framework for certified instructors who have specific students assigned to them for a grade or credit.

Non-Classroom Teacher: **Hyperlink to: MARZANO CENTER NON-CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL EVALUATION

MODEL The Non-Classroom Instructional Personnel Evaluation Model is an evaluation framework for certificated instructors whose primary job is not day‐to-day instruction of students. Instructional support personnel typically provide appropriate support to students, schools, and districts in a non-classroom setting; positions may include both instructional support personnel such as educational specialists, media specialists, and instructional coaches, and student services personnel such as counselors, school psychologists, and career specialists. Building evaluators and non-classroom personnel may agree to use either rubric, based on the unique roles and duties of non-classroom personnel in each building.

8

Teacher Performance The Teacher Performance Rubric provides 90% of the total rating for the Performance Evaluation System. The Student Growth Measures provide for the other 10%.

The Teacher Performance Rubric (90%) includes four domains:

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Domain 2: Planning and Preparing Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

The Domain ratings and Design Questions are weighted to form one rating for domains 1-4 using the conjunctive scoring method within the i-Observation program (Appendix A: Conjunctive Scoring Example and Tool). Good instruction matters more than anything else a teacher can do to improve student outcomes. Therefore, the Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Domain is weighted significantly more than the others.

90%

10%

Teacher Performance Evaluation Model

Teacher Performance Rubric

Student Growth Measures

9

Elements of the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model – 90% of Summative Rating The Marzano Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model contains sixty elements designed to inform the instructional practices of teachers. There are forty-one elements in Domain 1 (Classroom Strategies and Behaviors), eight in Domain 2 (Planning and Preparing), five in Domain 3 (Reflecting on Teaching), and six in Domain 4 (Collegiality and Professionalism). The Marzano Non-Classroom Teacher Performance Evaluation Model contains thirty-three elements designed to inform the instructional practices of non-classroom teachers. There are sixteen elements in Domain 1 (Instructional Support Strategies and Behaviors), seven in Domain 2 (Planning and Preparing), four in Domain 3 (Reflecting on Teaching), and six in Domain 4 (Collegiality and Professionalism). Marzano Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model Domain 1 Classroom Strategies and Behaviors contains 9 Design Questions (DQ) (68% of Rubric Score).

• Design Question #1: What will I do to establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress, and celebrate success? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ

• Design Question # 2: What will I do to help students effectively interact with new knowledge? There are 8 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ

• Design Question #3: What will I do to help students practice and deepen their understanding of new knowledge? There are 7 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ

• Design Question #4: What will I do to help students generate and test hypotheses about new knowledge? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

68.0%

14.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric

Domain 1: Classroom Strategiesand Behaviors

Domain 2: Planning andPreparing

Domain 3: Reflecting onTeaching

Domain 4: Collegiality andProfessionalism

10

• Design Question #5: What will I do to engage students? There are 9 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

• Design Question #6: What will I do to establish and maintain classroom rules and procedures? There are 2 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

• Design Question #7: What will I do to recognize and acknowledge adherence or lack of adherence to rules and procedures? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ

• Design Question #8: What will I do to establish and maintain relationships with students? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

• Design Question #9: What will I do to communicate high expectations for all students? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

Domain 2 Planning and Preparing is made up of 8 elements. These 8 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 2 score. (14% of Rubric Score). Domain 3 Reflecting on Teaching is made up of 5 elements. These 5 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 3 score. (8% of Rubric Score). Domain 4 Collegiality and Professionalism is made up of 6 elements. These 6 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 4 score. (10% of Rubric Score). Marzano Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model Domain 1 Instructional Support Strategies and Behaviors contains 3 Design Questions (DQ) (68% of Rubric Score).

• Design Question #1: What will I do to establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress, and celebrate success? There are 3 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

• Design Question # 2: What will I do to help establish content? There are 6 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

• Design Question #3: What will I do to help facilitate engagement? There are 7 elements of this DQ and the elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall DQ.

Domain 2 Planning and Preparing is made up of 7 elements. These 7 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 2 score. (14% of Rubric Score). Domain 3 Reflecting on Teaching is made up of 4 elements. These 4 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 3 score. (8% of Rubric Score). Domain 4 Collegiality and Professionalism is made up of 6 elements. These 6 elements will be used to guide the evidence used to demonstrate proficiency in the overall Domain 4 score. (10% of Rubric Score). *It is recommended that a minimum number of 50 ratings be accumulated over the course of one year.

11

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Map

12

Model Learning Map

13

Marzano Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluation Map

14

Student Growth Measures According to IC 20-28-11.5, all teacher evaluation models must include Student Growth and Achievement Data. Evaluations should be student-focused. First and foremost, an effective teacher helps students make academic progress.

As a vital member of professional learning communities, we all collaborate and are responsible for the success of every student.

For certified staff who do not teach classes measured by state-wide assessments, 6% of the Student Growth Score shall be determined by locally developed assessments and 4% by the Corporation letter grade.

For those teachers who teach classes measured by state-wide assessments, 6% of the Student Growth Score shall be determined by student performance and 4% shall be determined by the Corporation letter grade.

1 2 3 4 State tested*

6% ISTEP/ECA 0-35% students

met target growth

36-49% students

met target growth

50-74% students

met target growth

>75% students

met target growth

4% Corporation letter grade

F or D C B A

All other certified staff

6% Locally developed

assessment

0-35% students

met target growth

36-49% students

met target growth

50-74% students

met target growth

>75% students

met target growth

4% Corporation letter grade

F or D C B A

Final Summative Performance Level Rating The final summative rating will be determined by the data collected by the principal or designee in all areas of the Monroe County Community School Corporation Teacher Performance Evaluation Plan that apply to each individual teacher based on his/her teaching grouping/assignment.

Final Teacher Performance Rubric Rating: _____ X .9 = __________ Final Student Growth Measure Score: _____ X .1 = __________ +

Summative Rating = __________

*Pending State guidelines this is subject to change.

15

Category Ratings Once the Final Summative Performance Level Rating is calculated, the rating will correlate with one of the four categories as seen below:

Highly Effective 4.000-3.445 Effective 3.444-1.745 Improvement Necessary 1.744-1.245 Ineffective 1.244-1.000

*Note: Borderline points are rounded to the next highest category. (Appendix B: Summative Scoring for Teachers)

Number of Teacher Days Required for a Qualifying Evaluation – Planned Leave A Qualifying Evaluation refers to an evaluation of a teacher who has attended a minimum number of “school” days required for the evaluation to be considered for any additional compensation resulting from the collective bargaining process.

Any teacher who plans to teach at least 120 “school” days in a school year should follow procedures of administering and documenting student achievement and growth measures. These measures should be written with all planned extended leaves in mind: both the assessment of student learning and content mastery standard should consider the timing and duration of the teacher’s planned absence. The evaluator must approve all parts of these student achievement measures.

If an unplanned extended leave is necessary, and the teacher’s approved measures are therefore not appropriate, the percentage of the teacher’s summative rating that would have been based on the student achievement and growth measures will be moved to the percentage based on the Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric at 100%. The weighting of the points will be adjusted as necessary for the designation of the teacher’s performance level.

DAYS PRESENT EVALUATION PROCESS 120+ “school” days No change – As prescribed 46-119 “school” days Summative rating based upon measures available and appropriate:

Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric weighted for their category. • Rubric score will include data from at least one formal and one

informal observation by primary evaluator 0-45 “school” days Evaluation declared incomplete for the school year. Implications for

eligibility for pay raises will be determined through the collective bargaining process.

NOTE: Should unexpected illness or absence prevent a teacher who is present for less than 120 “school” days from completing student achievement and growth measures data, the evaluation shall be completed using only the Teacher Performance Rubric at 100% as noted in the above chart. If the teacher’s unexpected illness or absence prevents a principal from completing at least one formal observation and one information observation, the evaluation shall be declared incomplete.

16

A teacher who questions how his/her summative rating is affected by an extended leave may request a meeting with the building principal.

Teachers Who Serve Multiple Schools Teachers who are assigned to more than one school will use the assigned FTE % to determine the Final Summative Score. The Primary Evaluator will be the principal in the building where the teacher has the most FTE. Principals from all of the schools served will collaborate to develop the teacher evaluation.

Evaluators

Primary Evaluator A Primary Evaluator is a licensed administrator who is a principal or assistant principal assigned to the teacher's building and is the person chiefly responsible for the summative evaluation of a teacher. This evaluator is responsible for collecting evidence themselves and reviewing evidence collected by any secondary evaluators. Each teacher has only one primary evaluator who remains in that role throughout the school year. The Primary evaluators must perform a minimum of one formal and one informal observation per year for each teacher. All other observations may be conducted by secondary evaluators.

Secondary Evaluator A Secondary Evaluator is a licensed administrator who may supplement the work of a primary evaluator by conducting observations, providing feedback or gathering evidence and artifacts of student learning. Each teacher may have more than one secondary evaluator depending on the grade levels and/or buildings taught. The Primary Evaluator selects the Secondary Evaluator based on need for specialized insight or a desire to gain another perspective.

Training for Staff Responsible for Evaluation Administrators responsible for conducting staff evaluations will receive training in observation skills, artifact and document analysis, conferencing and mentoring skills, professional growth plan development, and feedback skills. This training will be ongoing and will occur annually. Training will incorporate procedures needed to ensure validity, reliability, and consistency in collecting and using evidence to promote teacher growth. A new administrator shall be trained as soon as is possible. Principals will serve as primary and/or secondary evaluators for all certificated employees.

Teacher Evaluation Process and Timeline The annual evaluation process between a teacher and his/her primary evaluator is initiated by an orientation to the process. Evaluators will meet with teachers within the first 30 work days, or as soon as reasonably possible to discuss the evaluation process and respective roles and responsibilities. In this meeting, they will discuss individual, school, and corporation goals and priorities.

17

Teacher Evaluation Process

First two weeks of school

All teachers complete Teacher Self-Reflection Tool and develop 1-3 SMART Goals (may be school-wide goals). Professional Growth and Development Plan created.

1st and 2nd year teachers or any teacher rated as “Improvement Necessary” or “Ineffective” in the last 3 years

2 Formal Observations (30 min each)

1 per sem/last by March 1

May be announced, or unannounced

Preconference recommended

Teacher Performance Reflective Conference and feedback within 7

school days

Veteran teachers with at least 2 full years of teaching experience

1 Formal Observation (30 min)

1 per year/by March 1 (additional, if requested)

May be announced, or unannounced

Preconference recommended

Teacher Performance Reflective Conference and feedback within 7

school days

2 informal observations per year (10 min each)

Unannounced

Written feedback within 5 school days

Summative Performance Conference (by Oct 15)

To be held once all Teacher Performance and Student Growth Measure data has been received and evaluated

Teacher Performance Level Determined

Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement Necessary, or Ineffective

If necessary, Plan of Assistance

Developed at any point in the year

If Teacher Performance Level is determined to be “Improvement Necessary” or “Ineffective” , Structured Plan of Assistance developed before March 15

Within 90 days (unless after March 15), Structured Plan of Assistance is concluded with recommendation made for renewal, non-renewal, or renewal,

but placed on on-going Plan of Assistance

18

Resources to Support Teacher Performance

Teacher Self-Reflection Tool Within the first two weeks of school, each teacher will complete the Teacher Self-Reflection Tool found within his/her individual iObservation account. This tool provides an opportunity to become familiar with the Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric and focus on areas of personal growth.

One to Three SMART Goals The Teacher Self Reflection tool will be utilized to reflect on individual, school, and corporation goals as directed by the principal. This process will guide and narrow the focus for the development of SMART Goals.

Professional Growth and Development Plan Using SMART goals each teacher will create an annual Professional Growth and Development Plan. Notice that one element of Domain 3 includes the development of a written Professional Growth and Development Plan which could be used as an indicator of the Reflecting on Teaching Domain An important part of developing professionally is the ability to self-reflect on performance. A professional development plan is a tool for teachers to assess their own performance and set development goals. In this sense, a professional development plan supports teachers who strive to improve performance, and can be particularly helpful for new teachers. Although every teacher is expected to set goals around his/her performance, only teachers who have a rating of Ineffective or Improvement Necessary after a formal observation or the completion of the Summative Evaluation Performance Level Rating are required to have a formal professional development plan which will be monitored by an evaluator. Notice that one element of Domain 3 includes the development of a written Growth Plan which could be used as an indicator of the Reflecting on Teaching Domain. MCCSC is committed to taking the time to differentiate the opportunities for all teachers to enhance their professional skills to better serve our students. The use of evaluation information in order to create rewarding professional development opportunities for our staff, tied directly to their needs identified within the evaluation process, will be vital to our student learning outcomes. In addition, Professional Growth Points (PGP) will be better scripted and that of higher quality. The digital reporting tool used for the teacher evaluations, will sum the rating on each element of each of the four domains. Those elements in which teachers receive the most “not using” or “beginning” marks will serve as guides for future professional development opportunities offered to MCCSC staff. Teachers in their first two years are encouraged to complete a professional development plan with the support of their primary evaluator. These teachers will benefit from early and frequent feedback on their performance. Evaluators should adjust timing of observations and conferences to ensure these teachers receive the support they need. This helps to support growth and also to set clear expectations on the instructional culture of the building and school leadership.

Classroom Observations/Evaluations During the school year, evaluators (both primary and secondary) will collect evidence through a series of observations and conferences. The following table indicates the minimum requirements for observations.

19

Observation

Type Length

(minimum) Frequency (minimum)

Pre-Conference

Post-Conference

Written Feedback

Announced

Formal Observation For teachers in their 1st or 2nd year of employment in MCCSC OR any teacher who was rated “Improvement Necessary” or “Ineffective” within past 3 years

30 minutes

2/year;

1/semester; 2nd before March 1

Optional, but

recommended, will be

conducted at the request of teacher and/or

evaluator

Yes

Within 7

work days

Evaluator Discretion

Formal Observation For veteran teachers with at least 2 full years of MCCSC teaching experience

30 minutes

1/year before

March 1; additional if requested by teacher or principal

Optional, but

recommended, will be

conducted at the request of teacher and/or

evaluator

Yes

Within 7

work days

Evaluator Discretion

Informal Observation All teachers

10 min.

2/year

No

At the

discretion of the teacher

and/or evaluator

Within 5

work days

Unannounced

Evaluative Evidence The types of evaluative evidence are as follows: A formal observation is an extended observation (minimum of 30 minutes). An informal observation is a short unannounced classroom walkthrough (duration usually 10-15 minutes) by the evaluator to observe the teacher in any of the domain areas. In addition, artifacts can be presented and reviewed as needed to document attainment of performance expectations. Artifacts are materials that relate to or affect instruction (e.g. lesson plans, assessments, unit planning materials, study guides, homework assignments, student work, professional development documentation, technology integration, student intervention documentation, newsletters, communication logs, discipline logs, emails, agendas, professional development presentations, and other materials of a similar nature).

20

Teacher Performance Reflective Conference This conference is to be held after each formal observation to reflect upon the Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric. A copy of the rubric with the evaluator’s comments and observation notes will be available to the teacher within seven “school” days of the observation. At the conference, the teacher and evaluator will:

1. Review progress on the Professional Growth and Development Plan. 2. Review Rubric elements observed. 3. Answer questions and clarify the expectations of the evaluator. 4. Review pieces of evidence/artifacts the teacher could use to document attainment of

performance expectations.

If the evaluator has determined that the teacher’s performance needs improvement, the teacher and evaluator will:

1. Review the specific performance expectation(s) not being met. 2. Specify what is needed to improve the level of performance. 3. Discuss goal setting and appropriate resources and guidance. 4. Develop and implement a Plan of Assistance.

Plan of Assistance When developing/implementing the Plan of Assistance (Appendix G: Plan of Assistance), the evaluator will:

1. Identify and review the specific performance expectations not being met. 2. Specify what is needed to improve the level of performance. 3. Provide suggestions, resources, strategies, and support the teacher may use to improve

performance. 4. Provide timelines for the teacher to follow when addressing performance elements, ensuring the

teacher has reasonable time to show improvement. 5. Provide ongoing observations and feedback to the teacher throughout the duration of the plan.

Whenever a teacher is required to have a Plan of Assistance, the building principal will inform the Superintendent or designee who will inform the MCEA president. If a Plan of Assistance is in place and the teacher transfers to another MCCSC building, the Plan of Assistance will continue.

Summative Performance Conference After state data is available, but no later than October 15, an overall Summative Performance Level Rating will be determined at or before the summative performance conference. The teacher will receive a copy of or have access to the MCCSC Summative Teacher Performance Evaluation document to be signed by both the assigned primary evaluator and the teacher found in iObservation. At the conference the evaluator will:

1. Review the reason(s) for the Summative Performance Level Rating and answer questions. 2. Discuss performance level – Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement Necessary, Ineffective. 3. Discuss with the teacher the evaluative recommendation for the next school year (i.e. Renewal,

Non-Renewal, Plan of Assistance or Structured Plan of Assistance for Improvement Necessary OR Ineffective.)

21

Structured Plan of Assistance for Improvement Necessary or Ineffective Summative Performance Level Rating If a teacher’s Summative Performance Level Rating is Improvement Necessary or Ineffective, the teacher and evaluator shall develop a Structured Plan of Assistance (Appendix I: Structured Plan of Assistance Form). When implementing a Structured Plan of Assistance, the evaluator will:

1. Identify and review the elements and student growth expectations not being met. 2. Specify what evidence is needed to improve the level of performance 3. Provide suggestions, resources, strategies, and support the teacher may use to improve

performance. 4. Require the use of the certified staff’s license renewal credits (PGP) in professional

development activities intended to help the certified staff achieve an effective rating on the next performance evaluation.

5. Provide timelines for the teacher to follow when addressing performance expectations, ensuring the teacher has reasonable time to show improvement (up to 90 instructional days).

6. Provide ongoing observations and feedback to the teacher throughout the duration of the plan.

Whenever a teacher is required to have a Structured Plan of Assistance, the building principal will inform the Superintendent or designee who will inform the MCEA president. A teacher who receives a summative rating of Ineffective may file a request for a private conference with the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee not later than five (5) days after receiving notice that the teacher received a rating of Ineffective. If a principal provides a teacher a written preliminary decision to either non-continue or cancel the teacher’s contract, the teacher has five (5) school days to request a conference with the superintendent.

Second Evaluator When a teacher is required to be placed on a Plan of Assistance or a Structured Plan of Assistance or receives a Summative Performance Level Rating of Improvement Necessary or Ineffective, at the option of the teacher or the administrator, a second evaluator shall be appointed by the Superintendent or designee. The second evaluator will be an administrator in the building of the teacher making the request/primary evaluator making the request (or if necessary, an administrator from another building that possesses appropriate expertise). Notice of this appointment shall be sent to the teacher. The second evaluator shall review the Plan of Assistance and previous evaluations. In addition to the evaluator, the second evaluator shall monitor the teacher's progress on the plan and make a judgment on contract renewal. The second evaluator and primary evaluator will discuss the teacher’s progress and status with the final responsibility of determination of employment status resting with the building principal.

Structured Plan of Assistance Timelines First Teacher Day through October 15 The Summative Performance Conference will review the results of the Summative Performance Level Rating based on the teacher’s evaluations from the previous school year. October 15 through March 15 A Structured Plan of Assistance will be developed and revised based on the teacher’s performance during the current school year.

22

At the conclusion of the Structured Plan of Assistance (no longer than 90 instructional days), the evaluator will make a judgment as to whether the teacher will be recommended for renewal, non-renewal, or renewal but placed on an on-going Plan of Assistance (Appendix F: Plan of Assistance). March 15 through the end of School Year The Structured Plan of Assistance initiated after March 15 will remain in place until the entire Summative Performance Evaluation Level Rating instrument for that school year is completed.

Oversight Process A committee of teachers and administrators will oversee data reliability/validity and procedural issues. The committee will meet quarterly. In addition to discussing the evaluation process throughout the school year, teachers will be given the opportunity through the discussion process to offer input into any possible revisions and/or additions they deem necessary in order to improve upon the teacher evaluation process.

23

Appendix A: Conjunctive Scoring Example and Tool

One way of calculating Marzano’s “Instructional Practice Status Score” (baseline)

1. For each Domain, determine the percentage of scores at each level (1-4)

Also, referred to as “eggs in a basket” (Red = 4, Blue = 3, Green = 2, Yellow = 1, Purple = 0)

Domain 1

Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Level 4 9 (18%) 3 (20%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) Level 3 26 (52%) 6 (40%) 2 (33%) 2 (66%) Level 2 11 (22%) 3 (20%) 2 (33%) 1 (33%) Level 1 2 (4%) 1 (7%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) Level 0 2 (4%) 2 (13%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Total scores 50 15 6 3

2. Refer to Proficiency Scale to Determine Status Score for each Domain Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Unsatisfactory (1) At least 55% at level 4 At least 55% at

level 3 and 4 Less than 55% at level 3 and 4 and less than 50% at level 1 and 0

Greater than or equal to 50% at level 1 and 0

Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 70% 3s and 4s 60% 3s and 4s 50% 3s and 4s 66% 3s and 4s Status Score 3 3 2 3

3. Determine Overall Instructional Practice Status Score by weighting each Domain

Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Status Score 3 3 2 3 Weight 68% 14% 8% 10% Weighted Score 2.04 .42 .16 .30 Overall IP Status Score

2.04 + .42 + .16 + .30 = 2.92

24

To calculate final Summative Performance Level Rating, Instructional Practice Overall Status Score will be factored in with Student Growth Measure.

90% Instructional Practice Overall Status Score and 10% Student Growth

Student Growth is 6% ISTEP/ECA/Locally Developed Assessments and 4% Corporation Letter Grade.

Corporation Scale Highly Effective Effective Improvement Necessary Ineffective 4.000 - 3.445

3.444 - 1.745 1.744 – 1.245 1.244 – 1.000

.5 1.75 .5 .25

25

Appendix B: Summative Scoring for Teachers and Additional Certified Staff

Category 1 Teacher Performance Evaluation

Rubric

Teacher Effectiveness Rubric Domains Weights Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors 68% Domain 2: Planning and Preparing 14% Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching 8%

Domain 4: Professionalism 10% Total Percent of Domains

100%

Category 2

Student Growth Measure

Final Summative Performance Level Rating

Final Teacher Performance Rubric Rating: _____ X .9 = __________ Final Student Growth Measure Score: _____ X .1 = __________ +

Summative Rating = __________

Student Learning Measures Weights Individual Educator Total = 10%

State Tested State Assessment 6% Corporation Grade 4%

All Others Locally Developed Assessment 6%

Corporation Grade 4%

Category Weights

Category 1—Teacher Performance Rubric

90%

Category 2-- Student Growth Measure 10%

100%

Highly Effective 4.000-3.445 Effective 3.444-1.745 Improvement Necessary 1.744-1.245 Ineffective 1.244-1.000